Far all any of us know, Bill Hamblin could be a first rate historian of the 15.5th century of Scottland and is man of the hour during his Cambridge commutes. Most of us are not historians let alone specialized ones in his exact field, so we'd have no way to judge his capabilities as a professional historian, and maybe this is where he really shines, and is what Dr. Peterson is talking about. But if Dr. Peterson is talking about his insights as an apologists, can we please ask which ones he's talking about? For all we know, Dr. Peterson may be talking about Hamblin's ability to insult his opponents since this seems to be such a prized talent.
We do know:
1. Hamblin made a vocal "you can't prove invisible pink dragons don't exist" argument -- this thread. 2. Hamblin made a vocal "evolution is a tautology argument" (or parroted the words from Karl Popper, who retracted this argument anyway. He's made other poor insights about how science works etc. based on simplistic readings of Popper) 3. He made a foolhardy statistical argument about Book of Mormon names -- thanks to CC jumping in as an expert witness here. I mean, c'mon, the brightest and consistently most insightful people I know don't foray with supreme confidence into territory they know nothing about, this especially holds true for math. This example and EA's evolutionary example speak to the truth of Mister Scratch's comments that Hamblin is not highly skilled in debate, as those who are, know how to tread carefully when out of their depth. 4. I have to put forward here, his ridicule of Mike Quinn's book in "that old black magic" where he says that even his undergraduate students can point out the flaws in Quinn. Because, you know, these students have a teacher who is a vocal critic of Quinn and are TBMs most who have not been exposed to anything but "faithful history". Is it amazing at all that such young minds fresh from high school seminary can find fault with someone critical of common TBM perceptions about the church?
Well, this is a perfect chance for the brilliant Bill Hamblin to come in and give SHIELDS some more content that makes the critics look dumb.
In his absence, I wonder if Dr. Peterson could provide a single example of an insight of Hamblin's, apologetic related, that he regards as brilliant?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote:maybe this is where he really shines, and is what Dr. Peterson is talking about.
It's not.
Gadianton wrote:Well, this is a perfect chance for the brilliant Bill Hamblin to come in.
Have you invited him?
Gadianton wrote:In his absence, I wonder if Dr. Peterson could provide a single example of an insight of Hamblin's, apologetic related, that he regards as brilliant?
Mister Scratch wrote:by the way: When can we expect Prof. Hamblin to drop by?
It's certainly not going to be until after you or one of the subordinate Scratches invite him. (Though it probably won't happen then, either, of course.)
Why the fetish about having me invite him?
If you really want him here, you can invite him every bit as easily as I can. His publicly-available e-mail address is william_hamblin@BYU.edu.
Maybe I will send him an email. And it's not "fetish" to request that you do it. It's just that you claim to be his friend, and, that being the case, it seems far more likely that he'd participate if it was a friend who asked him to join in. Furthermore, I think it's only fair that *you* ask for a change. Lots of us have contacted various Mopologetic-related people over the years, whether it be over the 2nd Watson Letter, or the Florida horse, all at your insistence, and yet you never seem willing to meet anyone halfway on this. That is, you often say, "Go contact so and so. Go find out," etc., but when *you* are asked to do a bit of this "contacting," you always pass the buck.
Daniel Peterson wrote:It's hard not to think of that when Mister Scratch puffs out his chest and boasts of his illusory triumphs. I wonder if he wears a pseudomilitary uniform decked out with braids, medals, and epaulets, in the manner of Michael Jackson.
Before I got to the end of the sentence, I thought you were going to say "like Joseph Smith".
-"I was gonna say something but I forgot what it was." -"Well, it must not have been very important or you wouldn't've forgotten it!" -"Oh, I remember. I'm radioactive."
Mister Scratch wrote:I think it's only fair that *you* ask for a change. Lots of us have contacted various Mopologetic-related people over the years, whether it be over the 2nd Watson Letter, or the Florida horse, all at your insistence
Before I got to the end of the sentence, I thought you were going to say "like Joseph Smith".
*snort*
How could anybody find the idea of Joseph Smith in uniform risible?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
